District Attorney’s Welfare Savings

Several years ago in Social Services, we were asked by the Board of Supervisors to provide dollar amounts of projected savings for a welfare fraud-prevention program. The answer was based upon guesses and estimates and resulted in a figure that satisfied the inquirers but could in no way be proved.

For that reason, I am skeptical of the $767,650 in nebulous savings claimed for the district attorney’s investigators in local welfare offices. How many people were applying? What percent were not granted aid solely because of the investigators? How much aid would have been given to each applicant?

County general assistance regulations are (or were) flexible enough to cover many situations. They do not exclude miscreants. And we try to feed and shelter even those whom we jail. It is likely that many applicants do not receive aid because they are intimidated rather than because they cannot be found eligible.

What happens to needy people who are turned away from county assistance? Some go to private agencies whose existence is threatened by the not-in-my-back-yard syndrome of those who don’t want “that kind of people” in their neighborhood. Others disappear. We can see many on benches or in parks and we probably see their dirt rather than their need.

During the time that I served as a hearing representative for those appealing a denial of aid, I always asked appellants how they were surviving without aid. When assured that their answers were confidential, the most common responses from both sexes were “I steal” or “prostitution.” So my question is: If we are truly saving taxpayers’ money, what is the ultimate cost in human terms?

RAY BRACY

Tustin